An emptier nest
New Urbanists and their friends are constantly bringing up density, and since the ones I know aren’t generally all that dense, I have to assume they’re referring to population distribution. In which case, they might be interested in this:
University of California researchers David Brownstone and Thomas Golob have looked at the relationship between residential density and driving habits, and concluded that: “Comparing two California households that are similar in all respects except residential density, a lower density of 1,000 housing units per square mile … implies an increase of 1,200 miles driven per year … and 65 more gallons of fuel used per household.
Which further implies that they’re getting less than 18.5 mpg on those miles, but let that pass for the moment.
The numbers get worse as you get out into McMansionland:
[G]oing from a neighborhood designed on the post-war, upper middle class ideal — your own home on 2 private acres — to the reality in many of the Northwest’s more compact urban areas — a mixture of single family homes with small yards, together with some multifamily housing, with an average of around 10 housing units per acre — you increase density by just over 6,000 housing units per acre.
Now I know from acres: I live on a quarter of one. (0.26, actually.) No way are you going to get 1500 housing units in my yard. There being 640 acres to the square mile, I’m going to assume he meant “just over 6,000 housing units per square mile,” which is plausible.
Doesn’t change his point, though:
And, according to the numbers that these authors have crunched, living in a compact neighborhood rather than a sprawling exurb would lead to a decline in gasoline consumption of … wait for it … 395 gallons of gasoline per household per year!
That’s a lot of gas. By comparison, the average resident of the Northwest states consumes about 390 gallons per year; so living in a denser neighborhood does as much to reduce your driving as having one fewer person in your household.
If I had one fewer person in my household, it would be down to zero, which would indeed reduce driving.
My own neighborhood is postwar, if not exactly upper-middle-class; it’s maybe a tick or two above average for this particular ZIP code. Curious, I ran the numbers, and there are 23,209 housing units in 73112, an area which covers 7.7 square miles. We’re running, therefore, about 3000 units per square mile, about five per acre.
In the summer of 2001, the Sierra Club made some noise about a level of density called “Efficient Urban,” which called for 500 units per acre, or about 125 in my yard. People who could actually count noted that this exceeded the density of Kolkata — you may remember it as “Calcutta” — by a factor of seven. They have since, and by “since” I mean “within 48 hours of the original outburst,” recanted.
And 395 gallons of gas, now that I think about it, would propel Gwendolyn about 8700 miles, which is two World Tours or about 14 months’ worth around town. Better than the 18.5 mpg those Californians are presumably getting.
McGehee »
12 August 2009 · 9:47 am
Fuel savings? Sure. Everything’s a trade-off and I’m sure there would have to be some kind of upside to being shoehorned into an entire city of those coffin-style sleeping compartments those Japanese hotels once offered — mile upon mile of them, stacked to the heavens.
Yeesh. There’s only one thing worse than people who aren’t willing to let everybody else make their own choice from among the myriad trade-offs life demands.
Cary »
12 August 2009 · 10:31 am
What is it?
McGehee »
12 August 2009 · 1:16 pm
I’m glad you asked. The only thing worse than people who aren’t willing to let everybody else make their own choice from among the myriad trade-offs life demands, is people who think it’s actually possible to avoid those trade-offs somehow — especially by involving the government.
Cary »
12 August 2009 · 1:39 pm
I couldn’t agree more.
And that’s why I know a lot of people
are going to be very happy when Medicare
and Social Security are gone.
And I’m glad you’re glad I asked. That was a very
nice thing to say.
And you’re welcome.
fillyjonk »
12 August 2009 · 3:43 pm
High density living is fantastic, provided none of your neighbors:
a. work a different schedule from you (e.g., someone works nights, so they are disturbed by your vacuuming in the middle of the afternoon. Or someone who works all day and thinks it’s fine to hammer together bookshelves at 11:30 pm)
b. has a love for music played at volume “11″ (And I don’t care WHAT music. I love Bach but having to listen to the Brandenburgs at high volume with the distortion of coming through the wall would still drive me crazy)
c. has loud arguments with anyone in their family/roommates
d. loudly and vigorously makes love. (One of THE most unsettling things to have to listen to through apartment walls, IMHO)
e. plays an instrument (Especially “is learning to play an instrument”)
f. cooks fish or other, shall we say, fragrant foods
I’ve lived in a few apartments over the years, and I will never live in one again as long as I can afford to avoid it. And yes, yes, I know not all apartments have paper thin walls. But I lived in one made of poured concrete when I was in college and STILL experienced listening to letter d above (well, at least until the couple broke up).
High density living is one of those things that may look great on paper, but people being what they are, there are going to be a few people who wind up making others miserable in the situation. Or everyone winds up making everyone else miserable for part of the time. (I will admit to having tried to counteract letter d by playing Edith Piaf records on high volume in my own apartment at times…)
Cary »
12 August 2009 · 4:10 pm
I like apartments for all the above reasons.
I hope that’s ok if I don’t agree with you.
If it’s not ok, I’ll take it back.